Illustrative composite scenarios of typical cross-border files — mechanics, venues and outcomes shown honestly, including the partial recoveries.
Illustrative composite scenarios reflecting typical cross-border trade files. Amounts, industries and venues are representative; identifying details are fictional. Outcomes are examples of what a process can produce — not a promise of yours.
A Zhongshan lighting manufacturer shipped three containers on 30-day terms; the buyer went quiet after the second. Our Toronto counsel issued a formal demand. The debtor acknowledged the balance in writing within days — and wired the full amount before the claim was even drafted.
A packaging line delivered on 60-day terms; payments stopped with one installment left. We filed in the Superior Court of Québec — bilingual file, EN/FR. Two weeks after the statement of claim was served, the debtor's counsel proposed the full principal plus half the accrued interest. Wired before discovery.
Nine invoices, months of promises, then silence. Filed in the Ontario Small Claims Court — the fast, low-cost track for claims under $50,000. The debtor appeared and settled at the conference: 85% of principal in three tranches, the remainder released against withdrawal.
The retailer raised a sudden "returns dispute" eight months after accepting the stock — with no complaint anywhere in the correspondence. Our audit said so in writing. A statutory demand followed; the debtor paid 80% within the 21-day window rather than face a winding-up petition. The client wrote the balance off as the cost of speed.
A late "quality claim" collapsed once the audit showed no contemporaneous complaint and a signed delivery acceptance. The debtor was solvent but slow — and still a buyer. Settlement preserved the relationship: 75% in two tranches, the discount credited against future orders.
Twenty-two months old — weeks from British Columbia's two-year limitation deadline. First move: a short, cordial exchange in which the debtor confirmed the balance in writing, restarting the clock. Then a six-month payment plan. The client took 70% in cash and kept the customer, rather than chase the remainder through a foreign court.
Two and a half years old, already written off in the client's books. Our asset check told the hard truth: a secured lender ahead of all trade creditors and three other collection files in the queue. Litigating to a judgment would have meant waiting in line behind a bank. The client took an 18% lump-sum release instead — real money from a file that was worth zero the week before.
Three years dormant, the debtor company half-alive and the director already trading through a new entity. A default judgment would have been registered against the old company's credit record for years — the one thing the director could not afford while banking with the new one. He settled: 22% of principal over six monthly installments. Not a victory parade — but the client had booked this file as a total loss in 2023.
Recovery rate is decided less by courtroom brilliance than by three boring things done early: documentation quality, limitation-period discipline, and asset verification before spending a dollar on procedure. That is what the free audit measures — and why we decline roughly a third of the files we review. A declined file costs you nothing; a bad mandate costs everyone.
Limitation periods tick quietly in every jurisdiction. Send us the invoice, the contract, and the debtor's name — we'll tell you within 24–48 hours whether the debt is collectible and what it would take.
